Sunday School 11/27/22: Extra Credit

This week's Sunday School was all about the classroom panel discussions. For your Extra Credit, I'll nose around a few of the 'usual suspect' interviews, starting with Dana Bash and Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) on CNN's SOTU.

"A former president, an antisemite, and a white supremacist walk into Mar-a-Lago. There is no punchline." That was Bash's intro to her discussion with Hutchinson - and I love it. Now - on to the recap.

• Hutchinson said he hopes "someday, we won't have to be responding" to stuff Trump has said or done. About the dinner, it "empowers people when you meet with them... you want to diminish their strength, not empower them." He also said "You have got to be absolutely clear in your communication that this is not acceptable dogma, it's not acceptable conversation, it's not acceptable history, and you have to disavow it. it's as simple as that."

• In his upcoming speech at the Reagan Institute, he's going to talk about things that Republicans "historically" don't do: "attack America's democracy...denigrate our political system...undermine confidence in America...attack those institutions that are fundamental to the rule of law." He said the party "is in a good position coming out of the midterms," but his remarks are for "the individual candidates that strayed from" Republican principles.

• He signed a bill banning biological males from competing in women's sports, so he's "comfortable" with Herschel Walker's attack ad about trans athletes just days after the shooting at a LGBTQ+ bar in Colorado Spring. He also passed anti-hate legislation and said "we shouldn't be targeting anyone because of their race or their gender." He closed with, "What happened at that nightclub is a human tragedy... These are challenging issues. And what happened is just simply wrong."

On MTP, What's-his-name (WHN) talked with Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO). Colorado's been the site of several mass shootings over the years. 

• Polis said everyone's voices need to be heard to fix this. "I think what you really need to do if you're serious about reducing these kinds of gun violence events and mass violence events is try to take the best ideas from all sides that work." That means mental health, and gun policy, and dealing with anti-LGBTQ stuff. "We need to, as a society, as political leaders, walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to look at all the evidence and the facts and try to make decisions that lead to a safer country."

• He said it looks like "this would have been a good instance" for the use of Colorado's 'red flag' law. It's been used "several hundred times, but could have been used even more" to prevent mass shootings, self-harm, or suicide." He also said "it's never comfortable" to get involved in someone else's business, particularly when it's a mental health issue, but "it's certainly better than the alternative," which is doing nothing.

• We need a national solution on guns. One example? Colorado has universal background checks, but neighboring states don't. He also was "generally supportive of national efforts towards closing the gun show loophole, towards having a conversation about. having a "process where you need an additional license or background check for some of the most high-powered weapons, I did support that as a member of Congress."

Finally, Jon Karl talked with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) in ABC's This Week classroom. 

• Unbanning Trump from Twitter is "a terrible mistake" and that Elon Musk did it via a user poll "further contradicts Musk and his claimed concern about bots on his own platform."

• Appointing a special counsel for Trump investigations is the right move, and "if the same prosecutors that have been investigating the former president and others can be moved on to the special prosecutor's team, then there is every reason to do it, no reason not to do it..." 

• Yes, we could have a trial of a candidate during a presidential campaign. He thinks the position that you can't indict a sitting president "is flawed as a constitutional matter," and he said DOJ can't now say "you also can't indict a former president who wants to run again."

• He doesn't want to "get ahead of" the decision the January 6th Committee issuing any criminal referrals. "I think the evidence is there to make a referral and we just have to decide whether that's the course we are going to take."

• Similarly, the potential for holding Trump in contempt for ignoring the Committee's subpoenas "is being discussed." He expressed frustration with the DOJ, saying "...even where we have held people in contempt, we're only batting 50 percent with the Justice Department in their willingness to enforce it."

• Kevin McCarthy probably will strip Schiff of his Intelligence Committee seat. "I suspect he will do whatever Marjorie Taylor Greene wants him to do. He is a very weak leader of his conference, meaning that he will adhere to the wishes of the lowest common denominator."

• He said the Ds "continually face a variation of the same question, which is should the Democrats do the right -- do the appropriate thing when Republicans have consistently refused to. I think we maintain the high ground. We follow the law. We follow our responsibilities under the separation of powers," and so yes, they should comply with "appropriate oversight."

• And finally, should now 80-year-old Joe Biden run for re-election? "I think he should. I think he's extremely capable. What he's been able to do in the last two years is an unprecedented level of accomplishment. If he wants to continue, I'm for him."

See you around campus. Chime in if you want - my office door's always open.

In Case You Missed It (v100)

Gather 'round, friends - it's time for your recap of last week's posts, in case you missed anything.

The week started with your Sunday School lesson, from ABC's This Week, with Jon Karl sitting in for George Stephanopoulos. Rep. Adam Kinzinger was one of the guests. Karl talked about AG Merrick Garland's statement that no one is above the law, not even a former president. Kinzinger agreed that it seems "more likely now" that we'll see the prosecution of a former president, and that he "hopes they're moving forward on it." 

Here's what came next.

Karl's response? 

So, you -- you hope that there will be a prosecution of Trump himself. Even -- I mean, this is -- I mean, you just have to take a step back here. This is a guy who is sounding like he’s going to run again, so he would be being prosecuted by the president that he is potentially running against.

Kinzinger was clear when he answered.

Look, I worry about everything that has happened for the last few years. And really, I worry about everything that could happen in the future, and that includes things like, you know, what happens if a president’s running for office and he’s indicted, how does that feel? But, the converse of that is, what happens if we don’t do anything? What happens if we look and say, well, he’s running again, we’re concerned how it’s going to look, so that, like, whole coup attempt thing, let’s just up that behind us and hope it never happens again? Because it will happen again.

We all should be worried about this, including those in the House and Senate who were active participants. 

For your Extra Credit, we checked in on Karl's chat with term-limited Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD); I've often referred to him as my favorite Republican, mostly because he is a Republican, not a Trump-pandering RINO. Here's a bit of the conversation after Karl's comments about one of them, Dan Cox (Hogan's called him a "QAnon whackjob"). He won the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Cox had support from the moronic Democratic Governors Association, and after playing one of the DGA ads, Karl said that even though the ad was "a cynical effort" voters responded to it.

Hogan said that's not quite correct. 

So, first of all, only 20 percent of the people in Maryland are Republican, and 20 percent of them showed up to the polls. So about 2 percent of the people in Maryland voted for this guy. It's not going to be the same in November, I can tell you that. So, it's not a big win. It's really a loss. 

And, obviously, Hogan won't be supporting Cox.

I would not support the guy. I wouldn't let him in the governor's office, let alone vote for him for the governor's office.

Hogan's planning on staying involved after he's out of office, which I think is good. 

On Tuesday, I did a Quick Take on the failure of the Secret Service to secure texts (and frankly, who knows what else) from December 2020 and January 2021. It's inconceivable to me that, in response to a DHS OIG request, there was only a single relevant text during that time period.

The Secret Service submitted the responsive records it identified, namely, a text message conversation from former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund to former Secret Service Uniformed Division Chief Thomas Sullivan requesting assistance on January 6, 2021, and advised the agency did not have any further records responsive to the DHS OIG's request for text messages.

For a full month, there was only one text? Seriously? And that text was from a former employee of the Capitol Police to a former Secret Service employee? How incredibly convenient that all seems.

I've done so much wondering lately - way more than makes it into the weekly Wondering on Wednesday posts. This week, I decided to give myself a break from the head-banging and from doing any heavy lifting about the House Oversight Committee's hearing with gun company execs. 

Instead, I shared a few memes from my files; here's one of them.

I also included some clips from the hearing, including a couple from Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA).

On Thursday, I shared a throwback Sunday School post from July 28, 2019. Why that post? Because it featured two people who are currently in the news. 

One's Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who appears to be lobbying to become the next Speaker of the House, assuming the Dems hold their majority and that Nancy Pelosi stays true to her word to not stay in the role. Back in 2019, though, he was talking about impeachment. 

The other? Andrew Yang, then a presidential candidate, and now one of the founders of the Forward Party. His conversation with Chris Wallace, former host of Fox News Sunday, was interesting, and it's in keeping with his vision for the new party.

Wallace wondered if Yang would attack the front-runners, as a way of getting more air time.

 I don't think that we benefit if I'm throwing rocks at other candidates when, frankly, I agree with them on many, many issues. And I think right now my focus really is on introducing myself to the American people. 

You can read more about his new idea in our TGIF entry, where I credited him with a mixed week. Another in the same boat? Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. He spoke at a conference in Rome, hosted by Notre Dame, the university in Indiana, and talked about the global reaction to his decision in the Dobbs case.

He also spent time talking about religious liberty, saying

It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection...  Our hearts are restless until we rest in God. 

So, what list did he end up on? 

Alito the man had a good week, I guess, for finding a place where his beliefs are widely accepted. Alito the justice? Bad week. As with the other justices, the less time they spend before partisan groups espousing their beliefs, the better.

I'll see you back here later with a Quick Take or two, Sunday School, and maybe more.

In Case You Missed It (v93)

Quite the week the last one was. Here's a recap, in case you missed anything.

I devoted your Sunday School lesson to talks with Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Pat Toomey (R-PA); they're both involved in the bipartisan talks to come up with legislative changes that could reduce the likelihood of yet another mass shooting occurring. 

Murphy talked with Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union; here's one of the more interesting moments from their discussion.

And what about Tapper's suggestion, that they just take all the laws passed in red-state Florida after the Parkland shooting, and use that as the template? It's a great question. for sure, and Murphy had a good answer, too. Then-Gov. Rick Scott passed the law

because it was the right thing to do, but also because Republican saw it as good politics. And we have to make the case for Republicans that, right now, this is good politics, that, if they want to get reelected, then they cannot stand in the way of the commonsense changes that we're talking about right now.

And, it made sense, Murphy said. It had mental health, school safety, and "some modest but impactful changes in gun laws." That's what he thinks the Senate can pass. And, while he's "more confident than ever" they can get it done this time, he's also "more anxious about failure this time around." 

Toomey talked with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation. Here's a bit of that.

And what about President Biden? Toomey wasn't kind, saying Biden "might have been" a president able to reach across the aisle, but "he's chosen not to take that approach since day one. He has sided with the far left of his party and really not reached out to Republicans."

He gave a speech on this topic where he advocated policies that he knows for sure have no chance of passing the Senate, probably couldn't even get 50 votes, and hold the Democrats, much less get the 60 we would need. 

So, once again, the president is not being very helpful.

I find it so interesting- that the Rs are mad at Biden for suggesting they do something that most Americans have favored - for years - and he's the unhelpful one? I think somehow the Rs have forgotten that, for better or worse, Biden is the president of the country, not merely the president of the whiny, do-nothing Senate Republicans. 

For your Extra Credit, I focused on conversations on the January 6th Committee hearing that aired last Thursday. Brennan talked with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Every Committee Investigating Trump). Regular readers know that I'm not always a fan of his, but at least for this part of their conversation, he was spot on.

Brennan asked if the Committee didn't "run the risk of losing the public's attention" if they fail to "deliver a bombshell" on Thursday. Schiff explained, for Brennan and for the people in the back, that the goal is to "present the narrative of what happened in this country, how close we came to losing our democracy, what led to that violent attack on the 6th."

The roundtable on This Week with George Stephanopoulos also tackled the issue. Here's Chris Christie's response to George's statement that he'd "find it hard to imagine at the end of the hearings that former president Trump is not going to be in a worse position than he is today."

..."the battle right now... is between the truth and lies." Trump has been lying "both affirmatively in terms of whether the election was stolen or not," and by his silence on his own actions on January 6th.

Donald Trump talks about everything. He's willing to talk (about) almost anything... you've never heard him talk about what he was doing on January 6th while this was going on. 

Moving on to my weekly Wondering on Wednesday, I noted it was both the day that the House took testimony from mass shooting survivors, gun reform advocates, and others. And, it was the day that an armed, self-described mentally ill person was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house. 

In response, the Senate's Grim Reaper, Mitch McConnell (R-Someplace Dark and Cold in Kentucky) declared that the House must pass the Supreme Court Security Bill, because the justices need protection now!

He went on to describe, without irony, his frustration at their 'multi-week' delay in passing the bill. Pretty rich from the guy who has the desk where everything that passed the House goes to die, but anyway, this post is about wondering, here I go.  

The guy was arrested, his weapons confiscated, and no one was hurt. And so, I find myself wondering why we need more laws, when we can just enforce the laws we have? 

If that's the answer whenever we talk about trying to make changes to gun laws to protect innocent children, concert-goers, grocery shoppers, prayer groups, church attendees, movie watchers, doctors and nurses and other health care professionals, and more, why isn't that the answer for SCOTUS justices?  

For your TGIF, shared some thoughts on the hearing that aired Thursday night, and some thoughts on the babble from the right. 

Now, for some specifics: On TNN, Sean Hannity said "the one person who looks good is Donald Trump." Meanwhile, this morning there's a boatload of tweeting about the "FACT" that Nancy Pelosi and the FBI were behind the insurrection.

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, why in the world did Trump tell the insurrectionists that they were very special and he loved them?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would Trump be complaining about how the media didn't fairly report the size of the crowd?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would any of the alleged Republicans be asking Trump for pardons?

• If it was Pelosi and the FBI, would Steve Bannon have said all hell is going to break loose on January 6th? How would he know?

Those are just a few of the questions I had trying to understand how the Dems were responsible for the Republican insurrection. As you might imagine, I declared it was a bad week for the real insurrectionists - and we all know who they are.

This week, I'll have more of the Yes, We Can Do Something series - I haven't forgotten about that, I promise.

And, of course, we'll have our regular weekly features, too. I hope you'll stick around.

Sunday School 6/5/22: Extra Credit

I'm switching gears from your Sunday School lesson on people trying to do something about gun murders, to people trying to do something about the January 6th insurrection... let's dive into this week's Extra Credit.

Jake Tapper had former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA) in the State of the Union classroom. He worked as an advisor to the House January 6th Committee for several months, leaving at the end of April to focus on helping Ukraine.

Before we get into his interview, the Committee is unhappy with Riggleman's appearances on CNN, as Politico noted last Friday. After one interview last week, the Committee's staff director sent an email regarding an "unauthorized" interview. Per the article, the email said Riggleman's appearance was "in direct contravention to his employment agreement."  And, of course, Riggleman "sharply disagreed" with that portrayal.

So, in the interest of not piling on to the Committee's dismay, I'll limit my excerpts to Riggleman's exuberance and personal opinions, and omit anything that could be remotely sensitive.

He said that the hearings are "going to be very concise," and "very exciting," and

...I think people are going to be absolutely surprised how much was known... And I think that's what's going to be exciting to see the committee. There's some very talented investigators behind the doors, and even with our teams and things like that and what they found, but, again, the investigators going through the thousands of interviews that they have and all the data and the videos.

I think -- I do think they're going to be very successful in those six -- I think in those six hearings.

And, he has hopes for the rest of us.

... the American people have to look at this from the beginning, take their notes, and understand that the committee has to build a case in a very solid, facts-based way. There's not going to be a lot of partisan whining or screaming. The investigators behind the door are nonpartisan individuals. They're going to present this case in a very cogent way. But the American people need to -- they need to take notes.

Tapper pressed on whether there's some kind of orange-haired smoking gun here. The only part I can comfortably repeat is that Riggleman said there were multiple groups looking at more data than he'd ever seen before - "it's absolutely incredible" - and that the Committee has to put it all together and that's what makes it exciting, and the "talent behind the door" made all of this possible, or something.

He agrees with Rep. Liz Cheney (R- stands for Real Republican) that the GOP has become a personality cult, not a party, and said he doesn't consider himself a Republican anymore. What he saw during his time with the Committee

has even pushed me further away, that the party has moved away from conservative principles to this cult of personality that Liz Cheney is talking about. She's absolutely correct. And when you see it behind the door... it's absolutely stunning, that cult of personality, but also the belief systems, that I don't think any real conservative could follow at any point. It's absolutely insane what people have sort of put their arms around. 

I can't agree more with that assessment, even without peeking behind the door. 

Down the hall, Margaret Brennan spoke with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Face the Nation. Schiff, you'll recall, was involved in both Trump impeachments, and is a member of the January 6th Committee. 

On the DOJ not charging Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, Schiff said it is "very puzzling why these two witnesses would be treated differently than the two" the DOJ decided to prosecute (Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro). 

These witnesses have very relevant testimony to offer in terms of what went into the violence of January 6th, the propagation of the big lie, and the idea that witnesses could simply fail to show up. And when the statute requires the Justice Department to present those cases to the grand jury, they don't, is deeply troubling. We hope to get more insight from the Justice Department, but it's a, I think, a grave disappointment and could impede our work if other witnesses think they can likewise refuse to show up with impunity.

He also said there's plenty of stuff they could have testified about that wouldn't come close to executive privilege - things about the campaign, relevant documents and the like.

None of which is protected by privilege. And the idea that you can simply refuse to show up, rather than show up and say, as to this question I'm going to assert a privilege, that just invites others to be in contempt of Congress or be in contempt of judges around the country in other courtrooms. And I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set.

Schiff said he wouldn't comment on any specific witnesses or testimony, but did say

...one of the themes that we will be fleshing out is the fact that in advance of the 6th, that there was an understanding of the propensity for violence that day, of the participation of white nationalist groups, of the effect that the continued propagation of his big lie to rile up the country and rile up the president's base was likely to lead to violence. 

Sunday School 1/2/22: Extra Credit

The pandemic was one hot topic in the Sunday School classrooms this week; last year's insurrection was the other.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MI) and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), the chair and vice-chair of the House January 6th Committee, were in the classrooms, as was Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is on the committee and is chair of the House Intelligence Committee. 

We'll start with Thompson and his chat with Chuck Todd, which aired on Meet the Press. Asked if what happened was a protest that got out of hand, or an insurrection, Thompson said it was a bit of both.

... you had citizens who have the right to protest, who thought that was the end of what would happen, and you had others who obviously came with bear spray, camouflage, Kevlar, hockey sticks, everything, prepared to do something else. 

They've heard from many who volunteered details on their experiences on January 6th, Thompson said; the goal now is to get to people the Committee "basically identified that they’ve participated," including Reps. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH), to cooperate. And if they have the authority to issue subpoenas (that's being looked at), "there'll be no reluctance on our part" to do so.

There's no timeline yet for issuing a report, but they're "in a good place" to start drafting one. Thompson said the Committee "won't be deterred by the attempts to slow things down by (people) suing the committee." He suggested it would be substantive, adding

there is some legislation that we hope to recommend with this report that Congress needs to adopt so that what occurred on January 6th will never happen again... we came critically close to losing this democracy as we've come to know it. And so, it's our duty as patriots, as Americans, as members of Congress, to make sure that we get it right.

Last thoughts? 

... I think if Democrats and Republicans who are ideologically apart like Liz (Cheney) and Bennie Thompson can come together for the good of this country, we'd be in a better place if others could do the same thing.

Speaking of Cheney, here are highlights of her visit with George Stephanopoulos on This Week. She said they have "firsthand testimony" that Trump watched the attack on TV in the dining room next to the Oval Office, and that it's hard to imagine a more significant and more serious dereliction of duty than" Trump's lack of action on January 6th. 

The president could have at any moment, walked those very few steps into the briefing room, gone on live television, and told his supporters who were assaulting the Capitol to stop. He could have told them to stand down. He could have told them to go home -- and he failed to do so. 

Whether it was criminally negligent has yet to be determined, but she did say one possible legislative change to be considered is whether "enhanced penalties for that kind of dereliction of duty" are needed. And she said, as he sat there, "members of his staff were pleading with him to go on television...Leader McCarthy was pleading with him to do that... Ivanka went in at least twice" to get him to stop the violence.

Any man who would not do so, any man who would provoke a violent assault on the Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes, any man who would watch television as police officers were being beaten, as his supporters were invading the Capitol of the United States, is clearly unfit for future office...

She agreed with Hillary Clinton who said if Trump ran for president and won, "that could be the end of our democracy;" Trump "crossed lines no American president has ever crossed before," he "cannot be trusted," and he "went to war with the rule of law..."

Cheney didn't really have an answer to why a majority of Rs would elect Trump again. Rather, she said the GOP had to choose loyalty to Constitution, or to Trump - they cannot be both. And, she said,

the nation needs a Republican Party that is based on substance and values and principles, and we've got to get back to that if we want to get this nation back on track... at the end of the day, we can't be a party that's based on lies. We've got to be based on a foundation of truth and fidelity to the rule of law. And, in my view, the most conservative of conservative principles is fidelity to the Constitution.

Final thoughts on what gives her hope? The committee does; she believes it's truly non-partisan, made up of folks with "very different policy views" who come together when it comes to defending the Constitution. She suggested that's the kind of "serious leadership" Americans need.

They're looking for people certainly on both sides of the aisle who are going to dedicate themselves to policy and substance and engage in the debates that we need for the health of the nation and get away from the kind of vitriol that we are seeing too frequently, too often, frankly on both sides...

Republicans, she said, "have a particular duty to reject insurrection, to reject what happened on January 6th, and to make sure that Donald Trump is not our nominee and that he's never anywhere close to the reins of power ever again."

And, from Schiff's conversation with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation, we learn he hopes they'll have hearings soon, and that

...we hope to be able to tell the story to the country so that they understand it isn't just about that one day, January 6th, but all that led up to it, what happened on that day, and the continuing danger going forward.

Schiff said that Trump and his aides "were indicatively involved" in various efforts. He said many things related to the actual attack are still "under deep investigation," but the issue of the White House's role "is at the core of our investigation."

Switching to his Intelligence Committee role, and whether "there was just a failure of imagination in terms of too much focus on militias and organized groups versus sort of a defused threat of political violence," Schiff agreed in part, mentioning. 

the failure to see all the evidence that was out there to be seen for the propensity of violence that day. A lot of it on social media. Now, there are answers for why the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security failed to see it as (clearly) as they should have, and we're looking into that.

As is always the case, Schiff kept talking when he should have stopped. 

But we shouldn't be distracted from the fact that, yes, while there were things that could and should have been done to protect the Capitol that day, the primary lever, instrument, the cause of that violence was the promulgation of a big lie by the former president... it's important that we don't lose sight of the real motivating cause here and -- and not just focus on the security of the building. It's also vital we understand that this was an attack inspired by the commander- in-chief.

He said he doesn't think Trump and "his acolytes" will be successful in delaying documents and "denying justice," adding that the "the courts have been moving with great alacrity" in deciding that the documents should be turned over. 

But when it does go before the Supreme Court, we well get a sense of whether that court is a conservative court or whether it has become just a partisan court. If it's a conservative court, it will not disturb the decisions below, which I think have clearly held that Congress has a right to this information....

We may find out soon just what kind of Court this is. Trump's application for a hold on the Circuit Court's decision that the records should be turned over was filed back on December 23rd. Not long after, the committee asked for a fast-tracked decision by Supremes on Trump's request, and the former president agreed.

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v73)

Here's your recap of last week's posts.

Sunday School brought us an MTP interview with California's Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead manager on Trump's first impeachment, talking about the managers for Trump's second impeachment, which ended yesterday, pretty much in the way we all knew it would. 

Schiff said that the managers for Trump II need to present all the facts, and not presume that everyone - including all senators - are familiar with the full breadth of what the former president did over the course of many months leading up to January 6th. He's confident they'll be able to tell the story.

Tell the story they did. - better than Schiff told his story when it was his turn, IMO.

For your Extra Credit, I highlighted Wyoming's Rep. Liz Cheney, she who won a vote of support from her caucus after issuing perhaps the most scathing Republican condemnation of the twice-impeached insurrection inciter. But, that's water over the damn, under the bridge and down the toilet.

Cheney talked with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, and said she's not resigning, as her state party requested when they censured her for "betraying the trust of Wyoming voters." 

The censure language indicated people still believe that BLM and Antifa were behind the Capitol insurrection. She said they've got a lot of work to do, and she blamed Trump and his lies for that.

We need to make sure that we as Republicans are the party of truth, that we are being honest about what really did happen in 2020 so we actually have a chance to win in 2022 and win the White House back in 2024.

Apparently, lots of people in her party don't believe that being the party of truth matters. Not only that, but far too many of them, including the ghastly GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, are willing to continue relying on Trump to help with their future goals. 

I wrapped up my Sonofa Gov's State of the State this week, not an easy task. In the first of three Meanwhile Back in Albany (MBIA) posts, I focused on Gov. Andrew Cuomo's plan for moving forward in a pandemic and post-pandemic world.

Now it's time to start looking ahead with the same toughness, the same smarts, the same unity, the same discipline, and the same love that brought us through last year. 

2021 will be a year of continued challenges, transformation, and change. We will need to adjust to the new social and economic realities of the post-COVID world.

Expanding on his Day 1 message, he spoke of having to reopening New York "smartly and safely." It's not an either/or thing, it's a "a new model of balance" using science and technology to do things intelligently. 

As Tuesday rolled around, bringing us the opening of the impeachment trial, I dropped a Poll Watch.

The Senate will have a split vote on whether it's even constitutional to impeach him, with the Rs likely ignoring, for the second time in two weeks, that it was their own rules that made it impossible to impeach him before his term ended. 

We will go through the motions: the Rs will claim the impeachment is dividing the country, and Ds will say that Trump continues to pose a clear and present danger to everything that's good and wholesome, so he must be prevented from ever holding office again. Pundits will wear their best outfits, the networks will have their impeachment background music, and when it's over, everything is supposed to be OK. 

But will everything be OK? Here's some info from a recent Quinnipiac poll illustrating where we stand right now, on impeachment and some other measures of 'OK-ness.'

The results? We're afraid for our democracy, we're afraid of violence, and we're afraid we're stuck in a partisan nightmare. 

Moving on to the third day of Cuomo's SOTS, I dropped another MBIA; this one focused on the greening of New York. In his words, 

As is true in so many major issues of our time, the challenge is to close the societal and governmental gap between aspirations and accomplishment, between rhetoric and reality, between saying and doing. Offering hope of a tomorrow that never comes is one of the main causes of our social unrest and distrust in government. We are just not making enough actual progress. Why? Because change is hard.

Have no fear, though: "As the world economy resets, and as change is a necessity, there is an opportunity to raise our efforts to the next level - and New York should seize this moment." And, we can seize the rhetorical moment, too: Cuomo noted that "candles cannot power the future." 

We're going to stick a fork in fossil fuels, or something, via a four-pronged approach. 

And, finally, the fourth and last MBIA, in which the Sonofa Gov spoke of when we used to lead, and how he wants us to be leaders again.

It's a long-taught lesson, he said, but without focus on the "ancillary" benefits - a collective lifted spirit, a belief in the future, and how those inspire economic confidence and stimulus. FDR, Cuomo said, understood that, and the Sonofa Gov wants us to understand that, too. And, don't forget, FDR was a New Yorker, and New Yorkers understand big ideas, and build big things.

Our country has lost its ambition, he said. Other countries "developed around us," and built the cool stuff - the largest high-speed rail network (China), the longest tunnel (Europe) and even the Middle East is "turning barren desert into economic engines."

He's got monster plans for building, across all three parts of the state: NYC, Long Island, and the vast thing called 'upstate.' 

Turning back to impeachment, I was inspired by lead House Manager Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who did a better-than-admirable job with the task he had. I was inspired by his recollection of the Voltaire 'absurdities...atrocities' quote, and how Trump turned so many into believers, with the inevitable end promised by Voltaire. 

All the absurdities, every single one of them, was believed. He was convincing in the telling, in the repetition, in the challenge, in the call to action. He is nothing if not relentless, nothing if not convincing, and they were ready and willing to be convinced, to be led, to obey the call. He had them hanging on his every word, hanging on to him.

He made them believe the absurdities, and when he asked, the atrocities followed. To the end, they were hanging on his every word, hanging on to him.

Who are 'they,' you ask? Who are the believers? They're not just his MAGA people - they're in the House and the Senate, too. The Republicans own them, now - don't be a believer when they tell you otherwise. 

And finally, it was time for a slightly unconventional TGIF, in which I focused on the last evidentiary day of the impeachment, and Trump's lawyers and their defense, if you could call it that, of the former president.  

That the lawyers managed to complain about the fancy media company the House Managers used to create their slick video, and then turn around and do exactly the same thing, but even slicker and, if I heard it right, with music, and Madonna, and Johnny Depp, was indicative of how little defense they had, and how little defense they presented in their time today. 

Oh, there was lots of emphasis on Trump's one statement of asking for people to be peaceful, as if the continuum of his incitement began and ended on that phrase on January 6th. I thought Rudy Giuliani was a bad lawyer, but these guys are giving him a run for their money. 

I closed with post, and the week, with this: 

Soon, we'll know officially that the Republicans are still afraid of Trump, and what he can do to their careers, and there will be an acquittal. The only thing we don' t know is, how many Rs will vote to convict. I hope some of them find the courage to do so; maybe the ones who've already declared they're not running next time?

Good week? Bad week? You pick.

We now know the answer to my question: seven. Senators Richard Burr (NC), Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AL), Mitt Romney (UT), Ben Sasse (NE), and Pat Toomey (PA) voted to convict Trump of "the gravest violation of his oath of office by any president in the history of this country," to quote Rep. Cheney. Burr and Toomey have already announced they're not seeking re-election.

You're all caught up. See you later for Sunday School.

Sunday School 2/7/21

Are you ready for some football? Political football, I mean, of course. Let's dive in to the classrooms, shall we?

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who led the team of House managers on Trump's first impeachment chatted with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. Schiff said that the managers for Trump II need to present all the facts, and not presume that everyone - including all senators - are familiar with the full breadth of what the former president did over the course of many months leading up to January 6th. He's confident they'll be able to tell the story.

Schiff also said that he thinks some senators would complain about the process no matter how slowly the House moved, but he said there was "a real sense of urgency" this time, given what happened. 

And we felt in the House, as well as ten of the Republicans, that every day he remained in office he was a danger to the country and we simply couldn’t -- you know, we couldn't, you know, sit still, and wait for weeks or months while this man posed a danger to the country. So, we did act with alacrity.

The president will have "every opportunity" to defend himself, even though he's already rejected testifying, and Schiff is encouraged by some senators who have said they're keeping an open mind. And yes, when he led the managers, they did believe that they had a chance - "it was very uphill" - and that, had they been allowed witnesses, they might have been able to change people's minds.

He said everyone needs to let the managers put on their case; he said lead manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is "an extraordinarily capable, brilliant Constitutional scholar " and will be among the folks making the call on whether or not to ask for witnesses.

But in a very real way, Chuck, we have the unusual circumstance where, on the very first day of the trial, when those managers walk on the floor of the Senate, there will already be over 100 witnesses present. And those will be the House and Senate members.

Finally, Chuck shared this comment from GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, directed at Democrats after the vote to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of her assignments.

If people are held to what they have said prior to even being in this House, if majority party gets to decide who sits on what other committees, I hope you keep that standard because we have a long list you can work within your own.

He asked if Schiff if he was worried about the precedent. Schiff said

Kevin McCarthy stands for nothing except the perpetuation of his own position. He has no values. And in my view, cares about little except for hoping to be speaker one day, God forbid.

He said that members - of either party - who threaten violence against other members, who cast doubt on 9/11 and school shootings, who heckle shooting victims, who suggest that a religious group is shooting laser beams to start forest fires, 

they should be expelled from their committees, whatever party they are in. They shouldn't, frankly, even be in the Congress.

The bottom line for Schiff? If everyone is held to the same standard, there's nothing to worry about.

And, speaking of worrying about things, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen joined Jake Tapper in the State of the Union classroom. She was asked to respond to comments from Larry Summers, a former Treasury Secretary himself, who said that "the proposed Biden stimulus is three times as large as the projected shortfall" and that it could lead to rising inflation. Yellen said that,

as Treasury secretary, I have to worry about all of the risks to the economy. And the most important risk is that we leave workers and communities scarred by the pandemic and the economic toll that it -- that it's taken, that we don't do enough to address the pandemic and the public health issues, that we don't get our kids back to school.

She listed other impacts, including millions out of work and out of the work force, children falling behind because schools aren't open, too many small businesses closing, police and firemen losing their jobs, and more. She said "we need a package that's big enough to address this full range of needs. And I believe that the American Rescue Plan is up to the job."

Regarding the risk of inflation, which she has "spent many years studying,, she said there are tools to deal with that if needed. And, she said, if we do nothing, "we would have a long, slow recovery" like we did after the Great Recession, according to the CBO. But, according to folks at Moody's and the Brookings Institution, this plan will put people back to work much sooner. Not only that, but she said if the package is passed, she expects that "we would get back to full employment next year."

Yellen said Biden is willing to work with folks in Congress to "define what's fair" and that he wouldn't want to see families making over $300K getting a stimulus payment, but that middle class families do need to get support. She didn't get any more specific than that, other than to reiterate that going big is important.

She said the SEC is working on a report giving all the facts of what went on with the GameStop trading and after that, folks can decide if new regs are needed. They'll review to "make sure the markets function efficiently, that investors are protected, and also that they understand the risks that they face when they engage in trading."

Regarding her own financial history with Wall Street types, including one of the hedge funds that was short-selling GameStop, she pointed to her ethics agreement and said she'd "religiously adhere to" that, and "will certainly abide by my ethics obligations."

Tapper dug up some old tape of Yellen saying, back in '98, "On average, women now earn about 75 percent of what men earn." And now, with women earning 81% of what men do, Tapper wondered what she wanted it to look like when her tenure as Treasury Secretary is over. 

Well, I would like there to be equal pay for equal work. And I would like to see the barriers that remain that impede the progress of women in the labor force addressed. Once upon a time, labor force participation of women in the United States exceeded that of most European countries.

The opposite is true now of Europe and other developed countries. And big differences are the availability of child care and paid family and medical leave. And these are things I think we need to work on in order to make it easier for women to work and to combine work with family life.

That would be fun, right?

I'll have Mayor Pete, er, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, in your Extra Credit. 

See you around campus - masks on, of course. And Go, Bucs in the Super Bowl!

Sunday School 6/21/20

Happy Father's Day, everyone.  Ready to dive in to the classrooms?  

CNN's State of the Union and Jake Tapper's conversation with Preet Bharara, CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former US Attorney from the Southern District of NY.

Bharara was there to talk about the firing of Geoffrey Berman, the most recent US Attorney for the SDNY. First off, he said he doesn't know if Berman will testify before any Congressional committees. Reflecting on his own experience after he was fired by Trump, he said that lots of folks wanted to hear from him, but the standard operating procedure is not to talk about ongoing investigations, even when you're no longer in office. 

And about impeaching Barr? He'll leave that up to Congress, but did say 

...the attorney general of the United States made a public misrepresentation about whether or not Geoff Berman as stepping down from office.  It was clearly not the case. It was clearly a falsehood... and I think that conduct alone shows there's some sort of unfitness for office... I know it's not the biggest thing in the world... but you make a representation that's not true, that's a problem for most people in any profession. It's a particular problem if you're the attorney general of the United States of America.

And Bharara said all of this probably stems from the president wanting Berman gone, and that it wasn't a case of the department losing confidence in Berman, since he was offered other positions within the DOJ.  And, 

Given that fact, and the weirdness of it, and all the other evidence that the president wasn't happy with how things were going in the Southern District, and wanting to make sure that they were stayed and they kept their place, stayed in their lane, that lane being loyalty to the president, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that the decision to get rid of Geoff Berman was not done in good faith.

Hard to disagree with him on that.

Chuck Todd had Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Meet the Press.  Schiff said he can't accept the explanation that Trump was "just trying to do a favor for a golfing buddy" by moving him to the US Attorney position in New York City,

given the pattern and practice of the president in seeking to use the justice system to reward friends, punish enemies, protest people he likes, and Bill Barr's willingness to carry that water for the president.

Schiff, like Rep. Jerry Nadler, who talked with Jake Tapper, said he hopes that Berman will testify before Congress. He also said 

It's, you know, I think, the most disastrous mismanagement of the Justice Department in modern memory. And like so much of what we have seen (with) this administration, it doesn't come as a surprise anymore. But yet, it's completely demoralizing to the people in the Department and dangerous to the rule of law. 

Moving on to Bolton, Schiff said he's seen the excerpts of the book, but hasn't read it yet - and "there's a tremendous amount to be disturbed about the substance of" the excerpts.

... we warned during the (impeachment) trial that you could only count on Donald trump to do what's right for him, not what's right for the country. And John Bolton says that is exactly this president's pattern and practice...

Todd reflected back on a pre-impeachment conversation he had with Schiff, about Bolton and not forcing him to testify, and he wondered if Schiff regretted not having fought harder to get Bolton's testimony in the House before voting on the Articles of Impeachment. Schiff said no.

I think, indeed, our decision has been vindicated by the fact that we are still in court now over a year later trying to get (Don) McGahn to testify. Bolton said he would sue us if we subpoenaed him. We would still be trying to get John Bolton's testimony today. 

And, he said, the House "made the case" when they urged the Senate to call Bolton during the trial, that "the senators would one day have to explain why they didn't want to hear from him when they had the opportunity. " 

He also said Bolton lacked the "basic courage and patriotism" and that it was "only greed that made him come forward in this book..."  It's hard to disagree with Schiff, too.

Finally, a quick check-in with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who talked with Jon Karl on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Here, too, the conversation started out with the Geoffrey Berman thing.  

Karl wondered if he thought that Berman would actually testify. Jeffries said he hoped at some point the Judiciary Committee would hear from him,

because I think he has a lot to say about a continuing pattern of chaos, crisis and corruption that we have seen from the Trump administration from the very beginning until this very day.

Karl pointed out that the president "gets to hire, gets to choose, nominate, appoint, in the case of acting US attorneys" - so doesn't he also have the right to fire them?  Jeffries pointed to the "long tradition...of there being no political interference" between the executive and the DOJ,

which is the primary vehicle at the federal level for ensuring that there's equal protection under the law, liberty and justice for all, anchored in the principle that we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not a government of a dictator or a monarch or a king.

He added that Nadler has the "full support" of the Speaker on wanting to have a hearing on this type of interference between the White House and Justice. 

Karl then asked whether John Bolton was right in his criticism about how the House handled the impeachment, keeping it so narrowly focused. That's a no.

Not at all. John Bolton is a political opportunist and a profiteer. He had the opportunity to step forward and participate in the House impeachment inquiry and share any information he had about wrongdoing by president Trump and other members of his administration, and he declined. 

And, he said, it was the Senate that committed malpractice in terms of acquitting Trump, and "now it's in the hands of the American people.

Karl's final question: If the Dems retain the House, should Nancy Pelosi step aside so there could be a black Speaker of the House? 

Not at all. Nancy Pelosi has done a phenomenal job as speaker leading our 'for the people' agenda... She has been a legendary speaker working with a historically diverse caucus, leading us forward. And I look forward to her continuing to do so in the next Congress.

See you around campus, in accordance with all applicable CDC guidelines, of course. 

My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective: I Can't "Keep Silence, on Pain of Imprisonment"

Danger. Danger. Danger.

In thinking about what has happened so far with the impeachment of Donald John Trump, I keep going back to that oft-repeated refrain above, given to us by president Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow. And no, I cannot maintain my silence, under any circumstances.

Danger. Danger. Danger.
Because what people said in the past on a completely unrelated impeachment is NOT more important than the impeachment sitting in front of the Senate right now. I get it - these folks have been around too long, and have said too much - but they are not on trial here. And while there's a certain smug satisfaction to be gained from repeating the conflicting opinions over and over (I'm guilty of that myself), it's distracting and it annoys the heck out of who you're criticizing, and it annoys the heck out of me.

Danger. Danger. Danger.
Because the Dems have been their own worst enemies in this process, in many respects.

• Not including bribery - an actual impeachable offense under the Constitution - in the articles, but arguing that you can prove bribery occured...
• Inviting Lev Parnas to the hearing, instead of putting him on the witness list...
• Holding the articles while arguing the urgent need to impeach was driven by an urgent issue raised by a whistleblower... 
• Not immediately disclosing that the whistleblower contacted the House Intelligence Committee, and was directed to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, and then making it worse by not being forthcoming when the issue arose... 
• Smiling and handing out pens when the articles were signed...
• Creating a story to illustrate what happened, when what actually happened was damning in and of itself...
• Insulting the people you're trying to get on your side while making your case...
• Spending time defending staffers, instead of quickly and forcefully making the point that the ICIG addressed potential bias and still determined there was an urgent need to address the complaint, and that everything had been corroborated by multiple witnesses...
• And finally, taking too long, spending too much time saying the same thing over and over, and, I think, using too many managers to do it.

Danger. Danger. Danger.

Because the Republicans have handled themselves no better than the Dems have, and in many cases they've handled themselves even worse, in that their behavior is based on fear of the president. They are so beholden to him and his largesse, and his endorsement; they are so afraid of losing that, afraid of his relentless attacks being turned on them. And afraid of the wrath that comes from his devoted followers: personal attacks, attacks on family members, and more. This is not in any way a joined ideology - Trump has none, really - it's a survival instinct. 

Danger. Danger. Danger.

Because knowing that every question (except for Rand Paul's whistleblower attacks) would be read and answered on national television, how could the Senators - fine people on both sides - waste so much time on patently ridiculous nonsense? They might have well as been reading Green Eggs and Ham as asking a question about Joe Biden's parenting style or the integrity of the Chief Justice...  and the Seuss would have been better received, I can assure you.

If what we saw was the best they can do on something as serious as impeaching the president, even if the outcome is a foregone conclusion, we're in trouble.

If that's how little respect they have for their constituents, shame on them.

And shame on us for our poor choices.

Danger. Danger. Danger.

Because politicians were just given carte blanche to say and do whatever they want, regardless of how abusive it is, if they think their election is in the national interest. And a president need not worry about abusing his or her power, even to invite foreign interference into our election - because unless a crime is committed they cannot be impeached... Except that they can't be charged with a crime - apparently including murder or attempted murder - while in office...  Add to that the opinion that impeachment can't happen during an election year...  Add to that the opinion that a president has carte blanche to obstruct Congress, and there are now no known limits to presidential power.

Danger. Danger. Danger.
When the president is acquitted on Wednesday, as he surely will be barring a meteor falling from the sky, what are we left with?  A deeply divided union, with the one person who's most happy about that sitting at the helm.

It will get better, but it will surely get worse first.

Danger. Danger. Danger.

Wondering on Wednesday (v195)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Oh yes, it's that time again!  I wonder, right off the bat, what Chief Justice John Roberts is thinking with the questions he's getting from senators? After all, he's the one who reminded us - and them - that they were the world's greatest deliberative body... and today he's reading questions about hypothetical Obama examples of corruption, and about grabbing things, if you know what I mean. And he's a lawyer, too - so what must he think of the arguments being made the the lawyers on both sides of the aisle?  What a book he could write on this...

And speaking of books, there appears to be a move underfoot to allow Senators from both parties (at least, I assume it's from both parties) to slink off to a bunker and read the manuscript of John Bolton's book. Now, we all know that doing anything in secure room is anathema to baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet, at least if Democrats do it, but what the heck?  Are they afraid of what John Bolton will say to their faces, I wonder?  

Remember, whatever he said in the book is a lie, the president told us - and there's nothing better than putting a person on the stand and making them lie under oath, or to try and prove that they're not. Well, nothing better than that - except hiding in a secure bunker, out of sight from the press and from your constituents...

One of the most interesting things I heard today was actually from Adam Schiff, who noted that it's kind of odd that various outlets filing FOIA requests are able to get documents that the House was blocked from receiving. I wonder how that happens, and how it's defensible? And I wonder if, going forward, the House will resort to that tactic to get information they need, instead of going the subpoena route? 

I also wonder how arguing whether president Trump is a better president vis-a-vis Ukraine than President Obama was is relevant here? The issue is that Trump asked a foreign country to interfere in our election by investigating a political rival - not who gave more money... And not only that, but if this article is correct, the big whoop-de-do about the Javelin missiles is really kind of a moot point, because the Trump administration makes Ukraine store the missiles away from the Russian front.

But a U.S. condition of these sales was that the Javelins couldn’t actually be used in the fight with Russia and had to be stored away from the battlefield, which means they’ve effectively had only a symbolic deterrent effect. 

It has nothing to do with who had bigger hands, or who had bigger crowd, or who has bigger anything else - except that with the current president, size ALWAYS matters.

And I wonder why, at times, Schiff fails to keep is eye on the prize? He was given an absurd series of questions from Ted Cruz and others about the whistleblower's bias, which the Intelligence Community Inspector General identified: did he work for Biden, did he work for Biden on Ukraine issues, and so on. Schiff spent more of his time defending his staff and whistleblowers in general, instead of simply quoting the ICIG directly. 

Michael Atkinson, the inspector general, said his review of the whistleblower complaint "identified some incidia of bias, of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate... such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern appears credible particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review.

There will be lots of time to defend his staff, and his Committee's staff, and the witnesses, after this is all over. Heck, he can even give them pens if he wants. But it's not relevant to the question, or to the inquiry.  FOCUS, people.

And one last point of wonderment: why is so much of the president defense based on reports from the "enemy of the people" the lying failing, lying, biased, traitorous, lying, #fakenews media?  For someone who's spent years trying to get us to believe that EVERYTHING the media tells us is a lie, his lawyers sure are making a lot of references to what the lying liars have reported. I wonder who am I to believe? The lying president, his lying defense team, or the truthful media?  This is SO confusing.